Supreme Court: Violent video games are protected speech

If there was any remaining doubt that video and computer games are as much a valid medium for telling stories and communicating ideas as books, plays, music movies, television shows and other media, today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a California law should lay those to rest.

In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled that California legislation banning the sale of violent video games to minors violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Writing for the majority – which included both liberal and conservative justices – Justice Antonin Scalia said:

Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player’s interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.

You can read the full opinion here [PDF], along with a concurrence written by Justice Samuel Alito and dissents by justices William Breyer and Clarence Thomas.

Duke Nukem Forever . . . you know, for the kids. (Source: 3D Realms)

This means that games with intense violence, such as Grand Theft Auto or the recently released Duke Nukem Forever, can be purchased by those under 18 in California. It should be noted that lower courts also declared the ruling unconstitutional, and it was never enforced there.

The decision emphasizes that new technologies and media are not exempt from First Amendment protections, even though it may be a “challenge” to do so. At this point, I don’t think you can even classify video and computer games as “new”, but it’s clear that they’re both art and an important form of storytelling. And just as with movies and books that may use violent imagery to make a point and, yes, to entertain, games deserve the protection of the First Amendment.

The court also made the point that violence is not the same as obscenity, which can be regulated in terms of access by minors. While a state can protect minors from being harmed, the court argued “that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed.”

Ultimately, the court is saying it’s not the government’s place to dictate whether minors can have access to violent content. That’s the job, ultimately, of parents.